UK forum members, BREXIT?

[apis]

That is why the principle of subsidiarity is so important in the EU.
From wiki:
"Subsidiarity is perhaps presently best known as a general principle of European Union law. According to this principle, the EU may only act (i.e. make laws) where action of individual countries is insufficient.

But who decides that the individual action of countries is not sufficient?

I'd put money on it being the greatest centre of power in the EU - the democracy dodging Commission.

No, it's the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg. And ultimately if a member state doesn't like a directive they can ignore it (the only thing EU can do about it is give them a fine) and/or they can leave the union.

Ah, the court with no appeal that always finds in favour of the commission.

The judges are appointed by the member states. And they do not always judge in favour of the commission. For example the court found the data retention directive invalid in 2014.

So the appointed court, can overrule the appointed commission (although it very rarely does). That's a relief.

How is it any different in the UK? You elect MPs who appoint the Prime minister who appoint the Cabinet ministers and so on. The judges of the UK supreme court are appointed by the Queen (!) on advice of the Prime Minister.

[apis]

fascist propaganda

If you track the rise in rapes, it directly corresponds to the rise in immigration.
Only in Sweden would someone fanatically deny a causal link.

It's a lie. The statistics are clear. Correlation doesn't mean causation, that is statistics 101. I think I have a pretty decent grasp of what is going on in Sweden, I actually live here you know. Go to london and ask Julian Assange what he thinks.

[doobedoobedo]

That is why the principle of subsidiarity is so important in the EU.
From wiki:
"Subsidiarity is perhaps presently best known as a general principle of European Union law. According to this principle, the EU may only act (i.e. make laws) where action of individual countries is insufficient.

But who decides that the individual action of countries is not sufficient?

I'd put money on it being the greatest centre of power in the EU - the democracy dodging Commission.

No, it's the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg. And ultimately if a member state doesn't like a directive they can ignore it (the only thing EU can do about it is give them a fine) and/or they can leave the union.

Ah, the court with no appeal that always finds in favour of the commission.

The judges are appointed by the member states. And they do not always judge in favour of the commission. For example the court found the data retention directive invalid in 2014.

So the appointed court, can overrule the appointed commission (although it very rarely does). That's a relief.

How is it any different in the UK? You elect MPs who appoint the Prime minister who appoint the Cabinet ministers and so on. The judges of the UK supreme court are appointed by the Queen (!) on advice of the Prime Minister.

You do realise that the PM and all ministers are elected members of parliament?

As for supreme court judges, by appointed you mean 'got the job they applied for'? https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/appointments-of-justices.html

[apis]

If you look at the longest lived "divisions" (countries), they work because they are geographically, culturally, socially and economically the same.  When two areas that aren't the same join, they always ultimately split up.

Example? Isolationist countries have always ended up poor and technologically backwards. China seems to be doing great and has a very heterogeneous makeup.

Nobody could rationally argue that the countries which currently make up the EU are close enough geographically, culturally, socially and economically that they will stand the test of time.

Evidently lots of people could, can and do. Besides, the cultural and social differences of the EU (and nation states in general) were artificially engineered during the 19th century. What about the US, all those geographically, culturally, socially and economically different states seems to get along just fine.

[dannyf]

When I think of what Swedes are doing to themselves, I get depressed. I am Brazilian and I get depressed thinking about Sweden. That's how bad it is.

Yes, but on the other hand, we have to respect the Swedish people's rights to be that. It is part of one's human rights to be stupid, to be detrimental to ones' own interests, to their own demise. And if that's what the Swedes want (through their politicians), they shall get it.

You would think that it is natural to think that Sweden is for Swedes, first and foremost, just as the UK is for British. But sometimes people are just stupid and the best help you can give them is to let them see how much hurt their stupidity is bringing to themselves.

[apis]

That is why the principle of subsidiarity is so important in the EU.
From wiki:
"Subsidiarity is perhaps presently best known as a general principle of European Union law. According to this principle, the EU may only act (i.e. make laws) where action of individual countries is insufficient.

But who decides that the individual action of countries is not sufficient?

I'd put money on it being the greatest centre of power in the EU - the democracy dodging Commission.

No, it's the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg. And ultimately if a member state doesn't like a directive they can ignore it (the only thing EU can do about it is give them a fine) and/or they can leave the union.

Ah, the court with no appeal that always finds in favour of the commission.

The judges are appointed by the member states. And they do not always judge in favour of the commission. For example the court found the data retention directive invalid in 2014.

So the appointed court, can overrule the appointed commission (although it very rarely does). That's a relief.

How is it any different in the UK? You elect MPs who appoint the Prime minister who appoint the Cabinet ministers and so on. The judges of the UK supreme court are appointed by the Queen (!) on advice of the Prime Minister.

You do realise that the PM and all ministers are elected members of parliament?

As for supreme court judges, by appointed you mean 'got the job they applied for'? https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/appointments-of-justices.html

You elect your MPs who appoints a PM who then then appoints ministers to sit on the European council of ministers (like all the other member countries) and so on. It's complicated but I don't see how the UK is any more or less democratic.

The judges in the European court of justice are appointed by the national governments of the member states, just like the justices in the UK supreme court used to be appointed by the UK PM. But looks like the UK changed the procedure 2005. I don't pretend to know how the UK is organized in detail...

About the EU commission: "While the Commission is the executive branch, the candidates are chosen individually by the 28 national governments, which means it is not possible for a Commission Member or its President to be removed by a direct election. Rather, the legitimacy of the Commission is mainly drawn from the vote of approval that is required from the European Parliament, along with Parliament's power to dismiss the body"... etc.

You should read up on how it works, it's complicated and there are problems (which I'm the first to admit) but it's a lot more democratic than you seem to believe.

[vodka]

fascist propaganda

If you track the rise in rapes, it directly corresponds to the rise in immigration.
Only in Sweden would someone fanatically deny a causal link.

It's a lie. The statistics are clear. Correlation doesn't mean causation, that is statistics 101. I think I have a pretty decent grasp of what is going on in Sweden, I actually live here you know. Go to london and ask Julian Assange what he thinks.

Apis wake up the Matrix world

#Forty years after the Swedish parliament unanimously decided to change the formerly homogenous Sweden into a multicultural country, violent crime has increased by 300% and rapes by 1,472%. Sweden is now number two on the list of rape countries, surpassed only by Lesotho in Southern Africa.

#Significantly, the report does not touch on the background of the rapists. One should, however, keep in mind that in statistics, second-generation immigrants are counted as Swedes.

#In an astounding number of cases, the Swedish courts have demonstrated sympathy for the rapists, and have acquitted suspects who have claimed that the girl wanted to have sex with six, seven or eight men.

#The internet radio station Granskning Sverige called the mainstream newspapers Aftonbladet and Expressen to ask why they had described the perpetrators as "Swedish men" when they actually were Somalis without Swedish citizenship. They were hugely offended when asked if they felt any responsibility to warn Swedish women to stay away from certain men. One journalist asked why that should be their responsibility.


In 1975, the Swedish parliament unanimously decided to change the former homogeneous Sweden into a multicultural country. Forty years later the dramatic consequences of this experiment emerge: violent crime has increased by 300%.

If one looks at the number of rapes, however, the increase is even worse. In 1975, 421 rapes were reported to the police; in 2014, it was 6,620. That is an increase of 1,472%.

Sweden is now number two on the global list of rape countries. According to a survey from 2010, Sweden, with 53.2 rapes per 100,000 inhabitants, is surpassed only by tiny Lesotho in Southern Africa, with 91.6 rapes per 100,000 inhabitants

According to figures published by The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brottsförebyggande rådet; known as Brå) -- an agency under the Ministry of Justice -- 29,000 Swedish women, during 2011, reported that they had been raped (which seems to indicate that less than 25% of the rapes are reported to the police).

Strange explanations

Rather than doing something about the problem of violence and rape, Swedish politicians, public authorities and media do their best to explain away the facts. Here are some of their explanations:

Swedes have become more prone to report crime.
The law has been changed so that more sexual offences are now classed as rape.
Swedish men cannot handle increased equality between the sexes and react with violence against women (perhaps the most fanciful excuse).
A long-held feminist myth is that the most dangerous place for a woman is her own home -- that most rapes are committed by someone she knows. This claim was refuted by Brå's report:

"In 58% of cases, the perpetrator was entirely unknown by the victim. In 29% of cases the perpetrator was an acquaintance, and in 13% of cases the perpetrator was a person close to the victim."

Brå reports that there are no major differences between women of Swedish and foreign background when it comes to the risk of being raped. Significantly, the report does not touch on the background of the rapists.

Without parallel

Back in 1975, the year when politicians decided that Sweden was to become multicultural, the Swedish population stood at 8,208,442. By 2014 it had grown to 9,743,087 -- an increase of 18.7%. This growth is entirely due to immigration, as Swedish women on average give birth to 1.92 children compared to the 2.24 average of immigrant women. One should, however, keep in mind that in the statistics, second-generation immigrants are counted as Swedes.

Sweden's recent population growth is without parallel. Never before in the country's history has the number of inhabitants increased so fast. Sweden is now the fastest growing country in Europe.

Over the past 10-15 years, immigrants have mainly come from Muslim countries such as Iraq, Syria and Somalia. Might this mass influx explain Sweden's rape explosion? It is difficult to give a precise answer, because Swedish law forbids registration based on people's ancestry or religion. One possible explanation is that, on average, people from the Middle East have a vastly different view of women and sex than Scandinavians have. And despite the attempts by the Swedish establishment to convince the population that everyone setting foot on Swedish soil becomes exactly like those who have lived here for dozens of generations, facts point in an altogether different direction.

The latest statistical survey of immigrant criminality compared to that of Swedes was done in 2005. The results are practically never mentioned. Not only that; anyone who dares refer to them, for example on social media, is viciously attacked.

Denigration of ethnic groups

Michael Hess, a local politician from Sweden Democrat Party, encouraged Swedish journalists to get acquainted with Islam's view of women, in connection with the many rapes that took place in Cairo's Tahrir Square during the "Arab Spring". Hess wrote, "When will you journalists realize that it is deeply rooted in Islam's culture to rape and brutalize women who refuse to comply with Islamic teachings. There is a strong connection between rapes in Sweden and the number of immigrants from MENA-countries [Middle East and North Africa]."

This remark led to Michael Hess being charged with "denigration of ethnic groups" [hets mot folkgrupp], a crime in Sweden. In May last year, he was handed a suspended jail sentence and a fine -- the suspension was due to the fact that he had no prior convictions. The verdict has been appealed to a higher court.

For many years, Michael Hess lived in Muslim countries, and he is well acquainted with Islam and its view of women. During his trial, he provided evidence of how sharia law deals with rape, and statistics to indicate that Muslims are vastly overrepresented among perpetrators of rape in Sweden. However, the court decided that facts were irrelevant:

"The Court [Tingsrätten] notes that the question of whether or not Michael Hess's pronouncement is true, or appeared to be true to Michael Hess, has no bearing on the case. Michael Hess's statement must be judged based on its timing and context. ... At the time of the offense, Michael Hess referred neither to established research nor to Islamic sources. It was only in connection with his indictment that Michael Hess tried to find support in research and religious writings. The Court therefore notes that Michael Hess's pronouncement was obviously not a part of any reasoned [saklig] or trustworthy [vederhäftig] discussion. Michael Hess's pronouncement must therefore be viewed as an expression of disdain for immigrants with an Islamic faith."

Statistical evidence

What may one conclude from the available statistics?

As part of the evidence Michael Hess presented in court, he made use of whatever statistics existed on immigrant criminality in Sweden before the statistical authorities stopped measuring. Michael Hess tried to find answers to two questions:

Is there a correspondence between the incidence of rape and the number of people with a foreign background in Sweden?
Is there a correspondence between the incidence of rape and some specific group of immigrants in Sweden?
The answer to both questions was an unequivocal Yes. Twenty-one research reports from the 1960s until today are unanimous in their conclusions: Whether or not they measured by the number of convicted rapists or men suspected of rape, men of foreign extraction were represented far more than Swedes. And this greater representation of persons with a foreign background keeps increasing:

1960-1970s – 1.2 to 2.6 times as often as Swedes
1980s – 2.1 to 4.7 times as often as Swedes
1990s – 2.1 to 8.1 times as often as Swedes
2000s – 2.1 to 19.5 times as often as Swedes
Even when adjusted for variables such as age, sex, class and place of residence, the huge discrepancy between immigrants and Swedes remains.

Research reports on crime in Sweden have become a rarity, but among the eighteen that were done during the 1990s and the 2000s, eleven dealt with rape. Two of these reports dealt with the connection between rape and immigration, and they both confirmed that there is a link.

These figures are available to the authorities, the politicians and the press, yet they insist that these numbers do not mirror reality.

Glaring discrepancy

How is it, then, that in 2008, Sweden's neighbor Denmark only had 7.3 rapes per 100,000 inhabitants compared to 53.2 in Sweden?

Danish legislation is not very different from Sweden's, and there is no obvious reason why Danish women should be less inclined to report rape than their Swedish counterparts.

In 2011, 6,509 rapes were reported to the Swedish police -- but only 392 in Denmark. The population of Denmark is about half the size of Sweden's, so even adjusted for size, the discrepancy is significant.

In Sweden, the authorities do what they can to conceal the origin of the rapists. In Denmark, the state's official statistical office, Statistics Denmark, revealed that in 2010 more than half of convicted rapists had an immigrant background.

Foreigners overrepresented

Since 2000, there has only been one research report on immigrant crime. It was done in 2006 by Ann-Christine Hjelm from Karlstads University.

It emerged that in 2002, 85% of those sentenced to at least two years in prison for rape in Svea Hovrätt, a court of appeals, were foreign born or second-generation immigrants.

A 1996 report by the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention reached the conclusion that immigrants from North Africa (Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia) were 23 times as likely to commit rape as Swedish men. The figures for men from Iraq, Bulgaria and Romania were, respectively, 20, 18 and 18. Men from the rest of Africa were 16 times more prone to commit rape; and men from Iran, Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia, 10 times as prone as Swedish men.

Gang rapes

A new trend reached Sweden with full force over the past few decades: gang rape -- virtually unknown before in Swedish criminal history. The number of gang rapes increased spectacularly between 1995 and 2006. Since then no studies of them have been undertaken.

One of the worst cases occurred in 2012, when a 30-year old woman was raped by eight men in a housing project for asylum seekers, in the small town of Mariannelund. The woman was an acquaintance of a man from Afghanistan who had lived in Sweden for a number of years. He invited her to go out with him. She obliged. The Afghan man took her to a refugee housing project and left her defenseless. During the night, she was raped repeatedly by the asylum seekers and when her "friend" returned, he raped her too. The following morning she managed to call the police. Sweden's public prosecutor has called the incident "the worst crime of rape in Swedish criminal history."

Seven of the men were sentenced to between 4.5 and 6.5 years in prison. Prison time is usually reduced by a third, so it won't be long before the men will be ready for new assaults -- presumably on infidel women.

In cases of gang rape, culprits and victims are most often young and in almost every case, the perpetrators are of immigrant background, mostly from Muslim countries. In an astounding number of cases, the Swedish courts have demonstrated sympathy for the rapists. Several times the courts have acquitted suspects who have claimed that the girl wanted sex with six, seven or eight men.

One striking incident occurred in 2013, in the Stockholm suburb of Tensta. A 15-year-old girl was locked up while six men of foreign extraction had sex with her. The lower court convicted the six men but the court of appeals acquitted them because no violence had occurred, and because the court determined that the girl "had not been in a defenseless position."

This month, all major Swedish media reported on a brutal gang rape on board the Finnish Ferry Amorella, running between Stockholm and Åbo in Finland. Big headlines told the readers that the perpetrators were Swedish:

"Several Swedish Men Suspected of Rape on the Finland Ferry" (Dagens Nyheter).
"Six Swedish Men Raped Woman in Cabin" (Aftonbladet).
"Six Swedes Arrested for Rape on Ferry" (Expressen).
"Eight Swedes Suspected of Rape on Ferry" (TT – the Swedish News Agency).
On closer inspection, it turned out that seven of the eight suspects were Somalis and one was Iraqi. None of them had Swedish citizenship, so they were not even Swedish in that sense. According to witnesses, the group of men had been scouring the ferry looking for sex. The police released four of them (but they are still suspects) whereas four (all Somalis) remain in custody.

The internet radio station Granskning Sverige called the mainstream newspapers Aftonbladet and Expressen to ask why they had described the perpetrators as "Swedish men" when they were actually Somalis. That is irrelevant, said the journalists. They were hugely offended when asked if they felt any responsibility to warn Swedish women to stay away from certain men. One journalist asked why that should be their responsibility.

"If the women knew, then perhaps they would have stayed away from these men and avoided being raped," said the reporter from Granskning Sverige. Whereupon the journalist slammed down the phone.

Ingrid Carlqvist and Lars Hedegaard are editors-in-chief of Dispatch International.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape

[Augustus]

When I think of what Swedes are doing to themselves, I get depressed. I am Brazilian and I get depressed thinking about Sweden. That's how bad it is.

Yes, but on the other hand, we have to respect the Swedish people's rights to be that. It is part of one's human rights to be stupid, to be detrimental to ones' own interests, to their own demise. And if that's what the Swedes want (through their politicians), they shall get it.

You would think that it is natural to think that Sweden is for Swedes, first and foremost, just as the UK is for British. But sometimes people are just stupid and the best help you can give them is to let them see how much hurt their stupidity is bringing to themselves.

It's not on you to decide who is "stupid" or not, this thread should be locked before it get's completely out of control 

[zapta]

fascist propaganda

If you track the rise in rapes, it directly corresponds to the rise in immigration.
Only in Sweden would someone fanatically deny a causal link.

It's a lie. The statistics are clear. Correlation doesn't mean causation, that is statistics 101. I think I have a pretty decent grasp of what is going on in Sweden, I actually live here you know. Go to london and ask Julian Assange what he thinks.[emoji14]

It's also possible that you have bias. I see it with people that live and have bias regarding local events.

[apis]

That is the issue. Those responsible for societies ills are too far removed and are thus protected from those directly affected by the adverse consequences of their actions. The masses have no easy means to redress the wrongs. Globalist political and corporate power destroys freedom, democracy and local economies. We will re-localize eventually one way or the other- but the process with be painfull.  Brexit is just a first shot across the bow...

TTIP (and presumably TTP) are the clearest example of this. It will give multinational corporations the ability to sue governments if the local services aren't opened up to competition/exploitation. The mere fear of the lawyers fees associated with being sued will kowtow civil servants into surrender.

It is unclear whether Brexit will help/hinder that process. Certainly the right-wing politicians tend to be in favour of TTIP, and the UK might "get to the front of the queue" w.r.t. trade agreements if it bends over and accepts being shafted by the TTIP.

Trump is riding similar sentiments; I wonder what his position on such things is today.

TTI P was indeed one of the reasons I voted out. I don't believe for 1 minute voting out will get us out of such agreements but if we were negotiating them as the British government and not the European government so we the people will get to hear more about what is going on and be able to get our voices heard. I can go and visit my MP and give him a piece of my mind but my MP does not even know what is in TTI P.

The fact that something like TTI P could even be conceived and discussed in the EU parliament is enough from me to decide that it has become a monstrosity that is uncontrollable and not very useful. The whole concept should have been thrown out at its inception instead they have been talking about it seriously for years.

The UK government are the ones (together with Sweden sadly) who has been pushing TTIP most enthusiastically. If anything EU was the best hope you had to put an end to it, or at least limit the consequences.

[apis]

When I think of what Swedes are doing to themselves, I get depressed. I am Brazilian and I get depressed thinking about Sweden. That's how bad it is.

Yes, but on the other hand, we have to respect the Swedish people's rights to be that. It is part of one's human rights to be stupid, to be detrimental to ones' own interests, to their own demise. And if that's what the Swedes want (through their politicians), they shall get it.

You would think that it is natural to think that Sweden is for Swedes, first and foremost, just as the UK is for British. But sometimes people are just stupid and the best help you can give them is to let them see how much hurt their stupidity is bringing to themselves.

It's not on you to decide who is "stupid" or not, this thread should be locked before it get's completely out of control 

Yeah, seems like no one wants to discuss Brexit anymore, and the Brexit had nothing to do with electronics anyway.

[dannyf]

Apis wake up the Matrix world

The swedes can always vote out the politicians, and they haven't so.

So if they want to have their country, their culture and their people destroyed, who's to say that they don't have that right?

[dannyf]

In Sweden, the authorities do what they can to conceal the origin of the rapists.

You find that in the media reporting of the dallas snipping: during the first 18 hours or so, there was no mentioning of the guy's race.

Many times, you listen to not just what's being reported, but also what's not being reporting, to get the whole picture,

[doobedoobedo]

That is why the principle of subsidiarity is so important in the EU.
From wiki:
"Subsidiarity is perhaps presently best known as a general principle of European Union law. According to this principle, the EU may only act (i.e. make laws) where action of individual countries is insufficient.

But who decides that the individual action of countries is not sufficient?

I'd put money on it being the greatest centre of power in the EU - the democracy dodging Commission.

No, it's the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg. And ultimately if a member state doesn't like a directive they can ignore it (the only thing EU can do about it is give them a fine) and/or they can leave the union.

Ah, the court with no appeal that always finds in favour of the commission.

The judges are appointed by the member states. And they do not always judge in favour of the commission. For example the court found the data retention directive invalid in 2014.

So the appointed court, can overrule the appointed commission (although it very rarely does). That's a relief.

How is it any different in the UK? You elect MPs who appoint the Prime minister who appoint the Cabinet ministers and so on. The judges of the UK supreme court are appointed by the Queen (!) on advice of the Prime Minister.

You do realise that the PM and all ministers are elected members of parliament?

As for supreme court judges, by appointed you mean 'got the job they applied for'? https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/appointments-of-justices.html

You elect your MPs who appoints a PM who then then appoints ministers to sit on the European council of ministers (like all the other member countries) and so on. It's complicated but I don't see how the UK is any more or less democratic.

The judges in the European court of justice are appointed by the national governments of the member states, just like the justices in the UK supreme court used to be appointed by the UK PM. But looks like the UK changed the procedure 2005. I don't pretend to know how the UK is organized in detail...

About the EU commission: "While the Commission is the executive branch, the candidates are chosen individually by the 28 national governments, which means it is not possible for a Commission Member or its President to be removed by a direct election. Rather, the legitimacy of the Commission is mainly drawn from the vote of approval that is required from the European Parliament, along with Parliament's power to dismiss the body"... etc.

You should read up on how it works, it's complicated and there are problems (which I'm the first to admit) but it's a lot more democratic than you seem to believe.

I have read up and seen how it works. It's a study in removing any democratic accountability from the ruling class.

You really ought to look at how it actually works as opposed to how they project how it works.

[tggzzz]

That is the issue. Those responsible for societies ills are too far removed and are thus protected from those directly affected by the adverse consequences of their actions. The masses have no easy means to redress the wrongs. Globalist political and corporate power destroys freedom, democracy and local economies. We will re-localize eventually one way or the other- but the process with be painfull.  Brexit is just a first shot across the bow...

TTIP (and presumably TTP) are the clearest example of this. It will give multinational corporations the ability to sue governments if the local services aren't opened up to competition/exploitation. The mere fear of the lawyers fees associated with being sued will kowtow civil servants into surrender.

It is unclear whether Brexit will help/hinder that process. Certainly the right-wing politicians tend to be in favour of TTIP, and the UK might "get to the front of the queue" w.r.t. trade agreements if it bends over and accepts being shafted by the TTIP.

Trump is riding similar sentiments; I wonder what his position on such things is today.

TTI P was indeed one of the reasons I voted out. I don't believe for 1 minute voting out will get us out of such agreements but if we were negotiating them as the British government and not the European government so we the people will get to hear more about what is going on and be able to get our voices heard. I can go and visit my MP and give him a piece of my mind but my MP does not even know what is in TTI P.

The fact that something like TTI P could even be conceived and discussed in the EU parliament is enough from me to decide that it has become a monstrosity that is uncontrollable and not very useful. The whole concept should have been thrown out at its inception instead they have been talking about it seriously for years.

The UK government are the ones (together with Sweden sadly) who has been pushing TTIP most enthusiastically. If anything EU was the best hope you had to put an end to it, or at least limit the consequences.

That's my understanding and belief.

[vodka]

In Sweden, the authorities do what they can to conceal the origin of the rapists.

You find that in the media reporting of the dallas snipping: during the first 18 hours or so, there was no mentioning of the guy's race.

Many times, you listen to not just what's being reported, but also what's not being reporting, to get the whole picture,

This success on all world , here when  there are gunfire , all medias say that : the authors of the gunfire are spanish.
It is true , but manipulated because the the 90% gunfire the authors are  Spanish Familiar Clans  of the gipsies. Here there are a "effective"  weapon control , all the gipsies with war weapons and if you bring a slingshot, the police  may detain and denunciate  you by illegal weapon and the judges condemn until 3 years of prision.

An other times , the own journalist try to mock of the censorship and they publicate the surname of the criminals(90% foreigns)

[Kjelt]

In Sweden, the authorities do what they can to conceal the origin of the rapists.

You find that in the media reporting of the dallas snipping: during the first 18 hours or so, there was no mentioning of the guy's race.
Many times, you listen to not just what's being reported, but also what's not being reporting, to get the whole picture,

The picture is much more difficult. If you mention race you feed the racist opinion machine, something the media already does continuously.
Here in my country the Maroccans are the ones being targeted, so if there is a crime and the perp is Maroccan they (the media) always mentions it in some form like nord african.
You keep feeding the segregation machine if you keep doing that. It is not important if the person that did the shooting was chinese,african, polish, or whatever, he was an american and you need to ask the question why? and IMO also how someone could get access to military weaponry. Those are the question that need to be answered. How come the % of some subcultures gets into criminal activities more then other subcultures. Is it because there are not enough jobs? Possibilities to educate? I heard rhere are neighboorhoods in the US where the police does not dare to go to. How rediculous is that and you accept this and call yourselves civilized? That are the questions and it is about time someone listened and did something about it.

[bitslice]

Apis wake up the Matrix world

The swedes can always vote out the politicians, and they haven't so.

So if they want to have their country, their culture and their people destroyed, who's to say that they don't have that right?

It doesn't always work like that.

The issue in the UK is that a number of mainly working class people wanted something "done" about immigration, (or rather the rapid formation of ghettos within their community which was rapidly destroying all social cohesion)

Green party policy - essentially wide open borders to islam, just lol
Tory party policy - "Mainstream Britain needs to integrate with the muslim way of life."
Labour party policy (Corbyn) - "It will be my pleasure and honor to host an event in Parliament where our friends from Hezbollah will be speaking, I’ve also invited our friends from Hamas to come and speak as well"
Labour party policy (Miliband) - "ethnic diversity has made us stronger"
Labour party policy (Brown) - "Don't say terrorists are Muslims"
Labour party policy (Blair) - "immigration policy was designed to ‘rub the Right’s nose in diversity’"
Liberal party policy - "we revelled in our diversity" "a nation at ease with diversity"
EU policy - essentially wide open borders to islam

 

So we had a large section of the population, already marginalised by poverty and poor education, now bearing the entire brunt of social changes with no political voice to defend them.

They had a decade of champagne socialism and a hostile indifference from all parts of the political spectrum, so sometimes you can't save a country from itself and you can't vote for change 

But when presented with an open vote like Brexit, they voted with irrational anger towards a system that was easily linked with everything that had denied them a voice.
This was why everyone in UK/EU politics was surprised, because they really thought everyone was thinking the same as them, that diversity was wonderful... 


Sweden is this times 100, a political neo-liberalism that hates its own people and seeks to deny a large proportion of them a voice. Essentially like every society where the Left has unthinking media support, you end up with a Totalitarian State controlled by Orwell's New-speak


 

[Tepe]

Sweden is this times 100, a political neo-liberalism that hates its own people and seeks to deny a large proportion of them a voice. Essentially like every society where the Left has unthinking media support, you end up with a Totalitarian State controlled by Orwell's New-speak

It is evident that you don't really comprehend Sweden

[bitslice]

It is evident that you don't really comprehend Sweden

It's evident that you disagree with the videos uploaded by Angry Foreigner, a Swedish national.

I did also watch a recent documentary on Sweden which made me think they are still blissfully unaware of the changes happening around them. Amazingly nobody in Sweden has the slightest notion that Islam is a political system as well as a religion, they are like children.
Remember the UK is much further down this road than Sweden, NoGo zones, active Sharia courts, ghetto cities, white minorities and rape are not a new thing for us.
But we do have a wider range of media sources, even if our political parties are all the same.

[Tepe]

It's evident that you disagree with the videos uploaded by Angry Foreigner, a Swedish national.

I certainly do.

I did also watch a recent documentary on Sweden which made me think they are still blissfully unaware of the changes happening around them.

You watched a TV program.  I interact with Swedish people every working day, I read Swedish papers and watch Swedish TV. heck, I even read Swedish literature.

Remember the UK is much further down this road than Sweden

So Sweden isn't in such a bad shape after all.

but we do have a wider range of media sources.

That's a good one. You forget that most Scandinavians understand multiple languages and have access to both the Internet and foreign television. You can even buy foreign papers 

[bitslice]

I interact with Swedish people every working day, I read Swedish papers and watch Swedish TV. heck, I even read Swedish literature.

Oddly the UK is currently obsessed with Swedish crime films and books, I bet we are their biggest market.

Ever watch the film "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"? That's what Sweden looks like to us now.
In Sweden, it's like nothing has happened, they wander around like Eloi waiting for the siren, it's just so sad to watch because we can see what is coming.

We have already seen the same changes in our country and now we have ten far right parties leap out of nowhere to oppose it. Theirs is a tiny country, does no one imagine the social changes might just be enormous?
Sweden has the SD party going from nowhere to 20% support, doesn't that suggest a change in society that isn't on your radar?

Scandinavians understand multiple languages and have access to both the Internet and foreign television.

So does ISIS, it doesn't mean they are going to change any time soon because they think they are right too. If you are all stuck in the same line of political thinking then you might as well be North Korea. Cultural relativism, always a joy to behold.


What do you think it means to have a taboo topic in society; Is it healthy or is it self destructive?

Noted that you only wish to dismiss an opinion without presenting your own. I'm not interested in a one sided discussion with someone.

[Tepe]

What do you think it means to have a taboo topic in society; Is it healthy or is it self destructive?

Noted that you only wish to dismiss an opinion without presenting your own. I'm not interested in a one sided discussion with someone.

We can't have that, can we?

I agree with you that the SD party is a reaction to all that PC in Sweden and one that was bound to happen. What has surprised me is that it took so long before it happened. Sweden has sorely needed to get a healthier discourse about these subjects - unfortunately it still hasn't got it.

I have no reason to doubt that a large part of the Swedes actually truly believe that the official immigration policy is the only reasonable way for decent people to act.

To vote for SD is the same as declaring that you are not a decent person (might even be objectively true  ). But even without going with the SD, you wouldn't want other people to think that you are one of "nassarna" (i.e., the nazis) by voicing critical opinions on immigration. PC is a strong force.

That other side of the coin of this taboo as you call it, of this missing discourse, is exactly that it helps extremism grow.

But something has changed. The increased inflow of migrants last year did cause Sweden to introduce controls at its borders, as you know. The Swedish press has actually started debating how much more can the country handle.

[Koen]

Ingrid Carlqvist and Lars Hedegaard are editors-in-chief of Dispatch International.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape

Quality source, bravo !

[bitslice]

What has surprised me is that it took so long before it happened. Sweden has sorely needed to get a healthier discourse about these subjects - unfortunately it still hasn't got it.

The media has an overt influence in the UK, we used have popular left and right wing outlets, yet now the left media is overly concerned with finding victims of oppression and the right media is pretty much a clickbait version of Reddit.
This has led to a lot of entrenched trivial thinking in politics, albeit split equally.

I have no reason to doubt that a large part of the Swedes actually truly believe that the official immigration policy is the only reasonable way for decent people to act.

Entirely admirable, however it's also kind of obvious that the third world is beating a path to its door, and if it doesn't stop being quite so admirable then it is just going to be an extension of the third world. There is a reason why Africa does not have a benefits system like Sweden's.

you wouldn't want other people to think that you are one of "nassarna" (i.e., the nazis) by voicing critical opinions on immigration. PC is a strong force.

This is the most interesting thing about this topic, countries like Germany and Sweden are still suffering from a post WWII rejection of Nationalism, this I think has led to an over reaction to the need to help refugees.

This would be fine if all those refugees were still Jews, you honestly would not have noticed they were even there. The current demographic bring with them political aspirations of their own. This is the new paradigm.

The true ignorance lies not with the integration concerns of today or even the current round of middle eastern internecine wars, but the fact that this is now a permanent problem that will stretch decades into the future.

Water use in Africa and the Middle East is unsustainable, those populations are soon all going to leave, and they will all come to places that have existing ethnic populations - ie Sweden and Germany.
Even the English Channel is a porous border, yet Europe isn't even thinking about this issue.
They really need to look at the unnerving failure of the Melilla border fence and consider what it means for them in the future.